International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research

[IJAAR]

ISSN 2223-7054 [Print]

2225-3610 [Online]

IJAAR ©
[Off Print]

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2, FEBRUARY 2020

INNSPUB
International Network For Natural Sciences
Website: www.innspub.net
Copyright © INNSPUB 2020

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 Home  Login  Register
SUBMIT YOUR PAPER ON VOLUME 17

Archive for | IJAAR |- February, 2020

Open Access RESEARCH PAPER

Evaluation of winter annuals for biomass production in rotation with traditional summer row crops in the Southeast United
States

By: Ping Huang, David I Bransby

Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res. 16(2), 1-8.

| Views 28 | Downloads 22 | Preview

Open Access RESEARCH PAPER

Growth comparison of Banana cv. Mchare (Huti Green) under full and deficit irrigation conditions in Northern Highlands,
Tanzania

By: Erick A. Kibona, Ernest R. Mbega, Kelvin M. Mtei, Patrick A, Ndakidemi

Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res. 16(2), 9-19.

| Views 23 | Downloads 21 | Preview

Menu

Publications Category

Book Publication

Call for Reviewers

ANNOUNCEMENT

Bangla Journal

Bangla Journal

Popular Posts
 Level of awareness and practices on solid waste…
Pineapple juice supplementation activates thyroid…
Major diseases of cashew (Anacardium Occidentale L.)…
Maternal curcumin exposure causes fetal gross…
Canopy interception on tree architecture models of…
Climate change awareness and environmental attitude…
Effects of biochar on soil chemical properties in…
Effect of biochar on maize yield and yield…
Abundance, length – weight relationships and…
Identification of disordered regions and potential…

International Network for Natural Sciences

Home Terms & Conditions Privacy & Policy
Copyright © 2009-2020. All Rights Reserved.
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR)

ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 1-8, 2020
RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Evaluation of winter annuals for biomass production in rotation

with traditional summer row crops in the Southeast United
States
Ping Huang*, David I Bransby

Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

Article published on February 15, 2020

Key words: Winter annuals, Cellulosic energy crops, Biomass production, Cropping systems and rotations,
Summer row crops

Abstract

Encouraging progress in commercial production of cellulosic biofuels, together with a need to avoid
disruption of current food, feed and fiber supplies, could rapidly lead to a shortage of land to produce
biomass. However, millions of acres used for production of traditional summer row crops in the Southeast
United States are idle during the winter, and could be used to produce biomass from winter annuals. This 3 -
yr small plot study evaluated three winter annuals (black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), rye (Secale cereale
L. subsp. cereale) and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.)) for biomass production, in rotation with
three summer row crops (cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) and soybeans
(Glycine max (L.) Merr.)) that are widely grown in the Southeast United States. All plots were di sked and
fertilized during the summer. Rye provided higher (p<0.10) biomass yield over the three years (9.0, 5.9 and
4.6Mg/ha in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 winter seasons, respectively) than black oat and ryegrass. The
variation in biomass yields over time was related to low temperature and solar radiation. Yields of the three
summer crops were higher following rye, relative to yields following black oat and ryegrass in 2008 and
2010. In 2009, this trend was not observed, possibly because of the very high rainfall during the summer
growing season. It is concluded that, compared to black oat and ryegrass, rye was the most suitable winter
crop for biomass production in rotation with the three summer crops evaluated in this study.
* Corresponding Author: Ping Huang  pzh0001@auburn.edu

Huang and Bransby Page 1

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Introduction
First generation bioenergy feedstock’s include food
crops such as sugarcane, corn and soybeans, which
are high in sugar, starch and/or oil content, and can
be converted into liquid biofuels using existing
technology. Two well-known processes in commercial
production of first-generation biofuels are sugarcane-
to-ethanol in Brazil and corn-to-ethanol in the United
States. Unlike first-generation bioenergy feedstocks,
next-generation bioenergy feedstocks, (i.e., ligno-
cellulosic biomass) are derived from non-food
sources, including wood, tall grasses, and forestry and
crop residues, which are harvested for their cellulosic
biomass and can only be converted into liquid biofuels
by more complex conversion technologies that are still
under development. Advances in recent years have
indicated that numerous technologies which can use a
variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks to produce
various liquid biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol,
green gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, are currently under
development (Kunkes et al., 2008; Regalbuto, 2009;
Brown and Brown, 2013; Knoll et al., 2015). Commercial
production of cellulosic drop-in replacement biofuels at
a cost that is competitive with fossil fuels is only a matter
of time (Solecki et al., 2012), thus increasing the need to
develop economically viable and environmentally
sustainable cellulosic biomass supply chains.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) mandated that 16 billion gallons of biofuel be
produced from cellulosic biomass and used in the US
by 2022. At a conversion ratio of 90 gallons per dry
ton of cellulosic biomass, this means that 180 million
dry tons of cellulosic material will have to be available
annually by 2022 (USDA, 2010). Together with a
need to avoid disruption of current food, feed and
fiber supplies, this could rapidly lead to a shortage of
land to produce cellulosic biomass. Meeting the
ambitious targets that have been set by EISA is a
major challenge. Some have suggested using tall
grasses such as switchgrass and giant reed to
establish low-input prairie on degraded agricultural
lands for cellulosic biomass production (Bransby and
Huang, 2014; Huang et al., 2014; Tilman et al.,
2006), but others argue that this approach is
inadequate to meet target production (Russelle et al.,
Huang and Bransby
2007). With this background of considerable
controversy, it is evident that a wide variety of
approaches is needed to meet the cellulosic biofuel
goals of EISA, and also minimize any negative
impacts on existing commodities.
One possible approach may be to include cellulosic
biomass production in existing summer row crop
systems that are currently fallow in winter: millions of
acres are currently used for production of traditional
summer row crops in the Southeast United States, but
are idle during the winter and could be used to
produce biomass from winter annuals. Winter crops
in a double cropping system are commonly planted as
unharvested cover crops to improve soil and water
conditions for subsequent summer crops. The
benefits of planting winter cover crops include
preventing soil erosion and enhancing soil organic
matter (SOM), thus improving soil quality and
productivity (Calonego and Rosolem, 2010). For
example, over-seeding rye into standing corn
increased corn yield (Schroder et al., 1996; Kuo et al.,
2000; Coelho et al., 2005). Cereal rye, annual
ryegrass and oats are common winter cover crop
species, and are well adapted to cool conditions that
prevail in the fall-winter-spring season in the
Southeast U.S. However, little is known about using
winter annuals for biomass production in rotation
with traditional summer row crops. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to evaluate three common
winter annuals ((black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.),
rye (Secale cereale L. subsp. cereale) and annual
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.))) for biomass
production, in rotation with three summer row crops
(cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), peanuts (Arachis
hypogaea L.) and soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.))
that are widely grown in the Southeast United States.
Materials and methods
Treatments and experimental design
This experiment was initiated in the winter of 2007
and conducted for 3 years at the E.V. Smith Research
Center, Plant Breeding Unit of the Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station near Tallassee,
Alabama USA. The soil test was performed by Auburn
Page 2
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

University Soil Testing Laboratory (Auburn, Alabama
USA). The soil was a Wickham sandy loam (fine-
loam, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludult),
containing 25mgkg-1 P, 29.5mgkg-1 K, 275mgkg-1
54.5mgkg-1mg, and pH 6.3. The field had been
planted with white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) in the
previous season. The experiment was laid out as a
two-factor factorial randomized complete block
(RCB) design with four replicates. Nine different
double cropping systems evaluated in this study
included all combinations of three winter annuals and
three summer crops: specifically rye, black oat or
ryegrass in winter, followed by cotton, peanuts or
soybeans in summer. Plot size was 3.6× 9.0m.
Crop rotation
Tillage operations, fertilizer application and planting
were conducted within one day in early November for
all winter seasons. Plots were disked to a depth of 10-
15cm and chisel plowed to a depth of 15cm, followed
by leveling, then fertilization with ammonium nitrate
at a rate of 112kg N ha-1. After applying fertilizer,
black oat, rye and annual ryegrass were seeded using
Ca, a grain drill set at a row spacing of 17.8cm. Table 1
presents more details on varieties, seed rate, planting
depth, planting and harvesting times.
For the summer season, tillage operations and
planting were also conducted within one day in mid-
May for all three summer crops. After removing
biomass of winter annuals, plots were disked, chisel
plowed and leveled as described above for winter
season crops, then planted with cotton, peanuts and
soybean using a planter set at a row spacing of
91.4cm. More details are presented in Table 1. Given
that peanuts and soybean are legumes, N fertilizer
was only applied to cotton plots in the form of
ammonium nitrate at a rate of 67kg N ha-1. In
addition, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
fertilizers were applied based on soil test results.

Table 1. Varieties, seeding rates, planting and harvest dates of winter annuals and summer crops.
Planting
Season Year Crop Variety Seeding rate Planting date Harvest date
depth (cm)
November 16,
Fall/spring 2007/2008 Black oats Soil Saver 100kg ha-1 1.9 April 29, 2008
2007
November 16,
Rye Elbon 100kg ha-1 1.9 April 29, 2008
2007
November 16,
Ryegrass Marshall 11kg ha-1 0.6 April 29, 2008
2007
Deltapine 555
Summer 2008 Cotton 179,400 seeds ha-1 1.3 May 14, 2008 October 10, 2008
BG/RR
Peanuts Georgia Green 215,300 seeds ha-1 3.2 May 14, 2008 November 4, 2008
MPV 5505 287,000 seeds ha-
Soybean 1.3 May 14, 2008 October 21, 2008
NRRSTS 1

November 13,
Fall/spring 2008/2009 Black oats Soil Saver 100kg ha-1 1.9 May 6, 2009
2008
November 13,
Rye Elbon 100kg ha-1 1.9 May 6, 2009
2008
November 13,
Ryegrass Marshall 11kg ha-1 0.6 May 6, 2009
2008
Summer 2009 Cotton Deltapine 555 179,400 seeds ha-1 1.3 June 4, 2009 December 4, 2009
November 18,
Peanuts Georgia Green 215,300 seeds ha-1 3.2 June 4, 2009
2009
287,000 seeds ha- November 18,
Soybean AG 6702 1.3 June 4, 2009
1 2009
Fall/spring 2009/2010 Black oats Soil Saver 100kg ha-1 1.9 December 7,2009 May 5, 2010
Rye Elbon 100kg ha-1 1.9 December 7,2009 May 5, 2010
Ryegrass Marshall 11kg ha-1 0.6 December 7,2009 May 5, 2010
Stoneville
Summer 2010 Cotton 179,400 seeds ha-1 1.3 May 18, 2010 October 26, 2010
4498B2RF2
September 30,
Peanuts Valencia 215,300 seeds ha-1 3.2 May 18, 2010
2010
NK S73-75 287,000 seeds ha-
Soybean 1.3 May 18, 2010 October 26, 2010
Roundup 1

All plots were cultivated, and herbicide and pesticide applied to all plots 12 days before planting summer
treatments were applied when necessary over the row crops, aldicarb (Temik) pesticide was applied to
three years. Glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide was cotton and peanut plots and pentachloronitrobenzene

Huang and Bransby Page 3

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
(Terraclor) fungicide was applied to all plots at
planting. To control leaf spot and white mold
diseases, chlorothalonil (Echo/ Equus) fungicides
were applied to peanuts six times at two week
intervals starting about 35 to 45 days after planting in
each summer season.
Data collection
At the end of each growing season, the center six rows
of each winter annual plot were cut to a 5-cm stubble
height with a sickle bar mower. Fresh biomass weight
of harvested material from each plot was measured
using a hanging scale in the field. Biomass
subsamples taken from each plot were dried at 60°C
for 72 h for dry matter determination. At maturity,
cotton defoliants including S,S,S-Tributyl
phosphorotrithioate (Def-6), ethephon (BollBuster)
and Thidiazuron (Takedown) were used for the
removal of leaves from cotton plants. Seed cotton was
then picked in the central two rows of each cotton
plot, using a John Deere 9920 (John Deere, Dumas,
Arkansas) two row spindle cotton picker. Cotton lint
yield was estimated by assuming a 39% ginning
efficiency. Peanuts and soybeans were harvested from
the central two rows of each plot with a peanut
combine and soybean plot combine, respectively.
Grain moisture was measured at harvest using a
moisture meter and reported grain yields were
adjusted accordingly. After harvesting border rows,
cotton, peanut and soybean plots were mowed and
prepared for planting winter annuals.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of yield data from both summer and
winter seasons were conducted using SAS v9.2 PROC
GLIMMIX (SAS Institute, 2009, Cary, NC) procedure.
Diagnostic plots were obtained by using the option
PLOTS=STUDENTPANEL and were used to evaluate
the model assumptions. Block was considered a
Table 2. Monthly and growing season precipitation 2007-2010.
Precipitation (mm)
Year Month
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2007
2008 111 102 77 101 64 50 126 252 19 83
2009 52 105 244 109 262 100 75 192 148 164 154 276
2010 152 76 124 32 176 56 128 122 46 31
Average
107 127 181 129 92 141 118 97
(1997-2006)
Huang and Bransby
random factor, whereas year, summer and winter crop
factors and their interactions were tested as fixed
effects. The critical p-value of 0.10 was used as cutoff
for testing these fixed effects, and determination of
differences in least-squares means was based on
adjusted p-value obtained by using the option
ADJUST=SIMULATE in the LSMEANS statement.
Biomass yield data from the 2008-09 and 2009-10
winter seasons were first analyzed to determine the
yield performance of the three winter annuals as
affected by the different summer row crops. Since
there was no difference in biomass yields of the three
winter annuals under different summer row crop
systems in the 2008 and 2009 winter seasons, all
winter biomass yield data were pooled to determine
the yield of the three winter annuals over the three
years. For each summer crop species, yield data from
the three years were also pooled for analysis.
Results
Weather conditions
Daily temperature and monthly precipitation patterns
are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Rainfall was close to long term averages in the 2007,
2008 and 2010 growing seasons, but very high in
2009. The summer (May to October) and winter
(November to April) growing season rainfall for 2009
was 941 and 814 mm, respectively, which is 324 and
48mm higher than the average rainfall received during
the past 10 years. The cumulative chill hours
(temperatures below 7.2℃) in the winter season of 2009
was higher than that in winter seasons of 2007 and
2008 (1211, 1171 and 1576 hours in 2007-08, 2008-09
and 2009-10 winter seasons, respectively) (Fig. 2)
probably because of lower cumulative solar radiation
(Fig. 3). Likewise, monthly minimum temperatures in
the winter season of 2008 and 2009 were lower than
that in the 2007 winter season (Fig. 4).
Winter growing Summer
season growing season
55 94 540
93 82 685 594
814 941
560
104 65 123 104 766 617
Page 4
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Fig. 1. Average daily air and soil temperatures from
November 2007 to October 2010.
Fig. 2. Monthly chill hours (temperatures below
7.2℃) in winter seasons between 2007 and 2010.
Fig. 3. Average daily solar radiation in each month of
winter seasons between 2007 and 2010.
Fig. 4. Monthly minimum air temperature in winter
seasons between 2007 and 2010.
Huang and Bransby
Winter biomass yield
Biomass yield of winter annuals was not affected by
summer crop factor and its interaction terms, but a
year × winter crop interaction was observed. In all
three growing seasons, biomass yield was higher for rye
than for annual ryegrass and black oat for which yield
did not differ (p<0.10) (Fig. 5). In addition, yield of the
three annuals decreased significantly over the three
years (p<0.10) (Fig. 6), with yield of rye decreased
relatively less with lower temperatures and less
sunlight than that of black oat and annual ryegrass
(Figs. 2-4 and 6). In particular, biomass yields for rye,
black oat and ryegrass in the 2009-10 winter season
decreased by 17%, 68% and 68%, respectively, when
compared to yields in the 2008-09 season.
Fig. 5. Biomass yields of the three winter annuals
within each winter growing season. Means within
each year with different letters differ significantly
(p<0.10). The error bars show standard errors.
Fig. 6. Biomass yields of each winter annual crop
across the three winter growing seasons. Means
within each winter annual crop with different letters
differ significantly (p<0.10). The error bars show
standard errors.
Page 5
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Summer row crop yield
A year × winter crop interaction was observed for
summer row crop yields. All three summer crop yields
were highest after rye, followed by yields after black oat
and ryegrass in 2008 and 2010 (Table 3). In 2010,
particularly, yields for cotton, peanuts and soybeans
after black oats decreased by 33%, 36% and 12%,
respectively, when compared to yields after rye; and so
did for the summer crop yields after ryegrass by 46%,
38% and 38%, respectively (Table 3). In 2009, the same
differences in yield of summer crops following the three
winter crops were not observed (Table 3).
Table 3. Yields of summer row crops in 2008-2010.
Yield of summer row crop (kg ha-1)
Year Winter crop Soybean
Cotton lint Peanut grain
grain
Ryegrass 893±79a 3746±222b 2080±153c
2008 Black oat 951±79a 3864±222b 2757±210b
Rye 1001±144a 4905±222a 3244±66a
Ryegrass 57±25a 2300±49a 1654±295a
2009 Black oat 68±25a 1894±222b 1816±210a
Rye 60±25a 2582±427a 1051±210b
Ryegrass 286±25b 214±49b 1221±210b
2010 Black oat 360±79ab 221±49b 1675±210ab
Rye 534±79a 343±49a 1960±295a
Means within each column and in the same year with
different letters differ significantly (p<0.10).
± numbers after means represent standard errors.
Discussion
The overall objective of this study was to evaluate
double cropping systems with selected winter annuals
for biomass production in rotation with summer row
crops that are widely grown in the Southeast United
States. Our results demonstrated that biomass yield
of selected winter annuals was not affected by the
three common summer row crops evaluated in this
study, but yield of the three summer row crops was
affected by selected winter annuals. In this 3-year
field study, rye provided significantly higher biomass
yield than annual ryegrass and black oats for which
yield did not differ. Biomass yield of the three annuals
varied over time, with yields significantly higher in
2007 than in 2008 and 2009. This variation in
biomass yield of winter annuals over time was not
related to planting summer crops. In the 2008 winter
season, biomass yields of the same varieties of black
oats and rye from the Alabama Variety Testing
Program without planting summer crops at the same
Huang and Bransby
experiment station were 3.48 and 5.56mg ha-1 (Glass
and van Santen, 2009), which were slightly lower
than that of black oats and rye in the 2008 winter
season in this study. The variation in biomass yield of
winter annuals over time was possibly because of the
changes in weather conditions at the experiment
station over the three years. Much lower monthly
minimum temperature and average daily solar
radiation were recorded at the experiment station in
the 2008 and 2009 winter seasons than in the 2007
winter season, resulting in significant lower biomass
yields in 2008 and 2009 when compared to 2007. In
addition, yield of rye decreased relatively less than
that of black oat and annual ryegrass. This suggests
that rye is more cold tolerant than the other two
winter annuals, which is consistent with the
observations of others (Stichler, 1997; Lemus, 2008).
In contrast to winter annuals, yields of summer row
crops were affected by winter annuals. All three
summer row crop yields were higher after rye than
yields after black oat and ryegrass in 2008 and 2010.
Based on studies by Barnes and Putnam (1986),
Bauer and Reeves (1999), and Price et al. (2008), this
result could be due to differences among these winter
crops in allelopathic effects. In 2009, the same
differences in yield of summer crops following the
three winter crops were not observed, possibly
because of the very high rainfall during the summer
growing season which could have reduced allelopathy,
as observed by Eerens et al. (1998).
Summer crop yields varied over time, with yields
higher in 2008 than in 2009 and 2010. The variation
in summer crop yields over time was not related to
planting winter annuals. In the 2010 summer season,
cotton lint and soybean grain yields of the same
varieties from the Alabama Variety Testing Program
without planting winter annuals at the same
experiment station were 536 and 1836kg ha-1 (Glass et
al., 2010 (a); Glass et al., 2010 (b)), which were very
close to or slightly lower than of cotton lint and
soybean yields after rye, but greatly higher than the
yields after black oats and annual ryegrass in 2010 in
this study.
Page 6
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
The variation in summer crop yields over time was
possibly because different varieties for all three
summer crops were used over time. It is well known
that summer crop yields vary greatly with different
varieties due to their adaptations to climate and soil
conditions, and disease-resistant ability. For example,
‘Valencia’ peanut used in 2010 has a much lower yield
potential than ‘Georgia Green’ used in 2008 and
2009. Under the best circumstances, the yield
potential for a ‘Valencia’ peanut is half or less than
that of ‘Georgia Green’ (Putnam et al., 1991; 2019
variety guide). ‘Georgia Green’ is a tomato spotted
wilt virus (TSWV)-resistant, runner-type peanut
cultivar, whereas ‘Valencia’ is not a disease-resistant
peanut cultivar. Compared to ‘Valencia’ peanut,
‘Georgia Green’ is also less susceptible to white mold
and early and late leaf spot diseases that are common
at the experiment station. In the 2010 summer
season, leaf spot and white mold were relatively high
and may have been responsible for the much lower
peanut yields when compared to peanut grain yields
in 2008 and 2009. Besides crop varieties, the changes
in weather conditions at the experiment station over
the three years could also contribute to the variation
in summer crop yields over time. Total solar radiation
of early summer season (May and June) was much
higher in 2008 than in 2009 and 2010. Compared to
2008 and 2010, rainfall was much higher in May
2009 resulting in very wet soil conditions, which may
have contributed to poor germination for summer
row crops in 2009, especially for cotton.
Consequently, much lower cotton lint yields were
observed in 2009 when compared to 2008 and 2010.
Conclusion
Overall, due to rye providing the highest biomass
yield and having the lowest negative impact on
summer row crop yield, rye appears to be better for
winter biomass production than black oat and annual
ryegrass when grown in rotation with cotton, peanuts
or soybeans in the Southeast U.S.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of
interest regarding the publication of this article.
Huang and Bransby
References
Barnes JP, Putnam AR. 1986. Evidence for
allelopathy by residues and aqueous extracts of rye
(Secale cereale). Weed Sci 34, 384-390.
Bauer PJ, Reeves DW. 1999. A comparison of
winter cereal species and planting dates as residue
cover for cotton growth with conservation tillage.
Crop Sci 39, 1824-1830.
Bransby DI, Huang P. 2014. Twenty-year biomass
yields of eight switch grass cultivars in Alabama.
Bioenergy Res 7, 1186-90.
Brown TR, Brown RC. 2013. A review of cellulosic
biofuel commercial-scale projects in the United
States. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 7(3), 235-245.
Calonego JC, Rosolem CA. 2010. Soybean root
growth and yield in rotation with cover crops under
chiseling and no-till. Eur. J. Agron 33, 242-249.
Coelho B, Roy R, Bruin A. 2005. Long-term
effects of late-summer overseeding of winter rye on
corn grain yield and nitrogen balance. Can. J. Plant
Sci 85(3), 543-554.
Eerens JPJ, Lucas RJ, Easton HS, White JGH.
1998. Influence of the ryegrass endophyte
(Neotyphodium lolii) in a cool moist environment. 1.
Pasture production. New Zeal. J. Agr. Res 41, 39-48.
Glass KM, Delaney DP, van Santen E. 2010.
Performance of soybean varieties in Alabama, 2010.
http://www.aaes.auburn.edu/comm/pubs/agronomy
/ay312soybean10.pdf. (a)
Glass KM, Monks CD, Burmester CH, van
Santen E. 2010. 2010 Alabama cotton variety report.
http://www.aaes.auburn.edu/comm/pubs/agronomy
/ay313cottonvar10.pdf. (b)
Glass KM, van Santen E. 2009. The 2009
Alabama performance comparison of small grain
varieties for forage. http://www.aaes.auburn.
edu/comm/pubs/agronomy/ay301smgrfor09.pdf
Page 7
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Huang P, Bransby DI, van Santen E, Sladden
S. 2014. Long-term biomass yields of giant reed,
mimosa and switchgrass in Alabama. Biofuel Bioprod
Biorefin 8(1), 59-66.
Knoll JE, Johnson JM, Huang P, Lee RD,
Anderson WF. 2015. Effects of delayed winter
harvest on biomass yield and quality of napiergrass
and energycane. Biomass Bioenerg 80, 330-337.
Kunkes EL, Simonetti DA, West RM, Serrano-
Ruiz JC, Gartner CA, Dumesic JA. 2008.
Catalytic conversion of biomass to monofunctional
hydrocarbons and targeted liquid-fuel classes. Science
332, 417-421.
Kuo S, Sainju UM, Jellum E. 1996. Winter cover
cropping influence on nitrogen mineralization,
presidedress soil nitrate test, and corn yields. Biol.
Fertil. Soils 22, 310-317.
Lemus R. 2008. Cool-season forages establishment
and maintenance. Extension service of Mississipi
State University. http://msucares. com/crops
/forages /newsletters/08/10.pdf
Price AJ, Stoll ME, Bergtold JS, Arriaga FJ,
Balkcom KS, Kornecki TS, Raper RL. 2008.
Effect of cover crop extracts on cotton and radish
radicle elongation. Communications in Biometry and
Crop Science 3(1), 60-66.
Putnam DH, Oplinger ES, Teynor TM, Okelke
EA, Kelling KA, Doll JD. 1991. Peanut: Alternative
Field Crops Manual. Minnesota Extension, University
of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 8 p.
Regalbuto JR. 2009. Cellulosic biofuels-got
gasoline? Science 325, 822-824.
Huang and Bransby
Russelle M, Morey R, Baker J, Porter P, Jung
H. 2007. Comment on “Carbon-negative biofuels
from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass”.
Science 316, 5831.
Schroder JJ, Vandijk W, Degroot WJM. 1996.
Effects of cover crops on the nitrogen fluxes in a
silage maize production system. Neth. J. Agric. Sci
44, 293-315.
Solecki M, Dougherty A, Epstein B. 2012. E2
Report: Advanced Biofuel Market Report 2012.
www.e2.org/ext/doc/E2AdvancedBiofuelMarketRrpo
rt2012.pdf.
Stichler C. 1997. Managing of annual winter forages
in Southwest Texas. Extension Service of Texas A&M
University. http://baylor.agrilife.org/files/2011/06
/managingannualwinterforagesswtexas_14.pdf
The Energy Independence and Security Act of
(EISA). 2007. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6e
nr.txt.pdf
The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). 2010. Regional Roadmap to Meeting the
Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard by 2020.
Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. 2006. Carbon-
negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity
grassland biomass. Science 314 (5805), 1598-1600.
Variety Guide. 2019. The Peanut Grower. One
grower publishing, LLC. https://peanutgrower. com/
feature/2019-peanut-variety-guide/
Page 8